LOCKHARDT & SEARLE

This matter concerned interim parenting orders between the applicant father and the respondent mother regarding their child, [X]. The dispute arose following the respondent mother's unilateral relocation from Melbourne to Perth, and subsequent non-compliance with drug testing orders. The court was also presented with evidence of the respondent mother's alleged drug use, erratic behaviour, and abusive communication towards the applicant father, as well as reports from the Department of Health and Human Services indicating a high level of abuse.

The court was required to determine the interim living arrangements for [X], considering the mother's relocation and alleged drug use, and the father's concerns for the child's safety. Key issues included whether to vary existing orders to reflect a change in residence, the terms of communication and changeovers between the parents, and the necessity for further drug testing and counselling for the respondent mother. The court also had to consider the impact of the respondent mother's alleged behaviour on the child's best interests, particularly in light of the statutory considerations under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

In its reasoning, the court applied the paramount consideration of the child's best interests as mandated by section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The court noted the broad discretion conferred by section 65D, which must be exercised judicially and with regard to the primary considerations outlined in section 60CC(2), including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. The court gave particular weight to the need for protection from harm, as amplified by section 60CC(2A), in light of the evidence presented regarding the respondent mother's conduct and alleged drug use. The court also considered the additional factors under section 60CC(3) and the specific circumstances of the case, including the respondent mother's failure to attend a section 11F conference and observed erratic behaviour.

The court made orders for [X] to live with the father, with specified supervised time and communication with the mother. Further orders included the mother undertaking a hair follicle drug test, providing evidence of enrolment in drug and alcohol counselling, and both parties being restrained from abusing each other in the presence of the child. The matter was adjourned for a final hearing.